Topic: [It's not real communism] or why socialism can still be an answer (Read 1098 times)

Hello world.

Have been away for lon and following HellFish advice I'm starting a selfmod thread. Feel free to say whatever you want as long as it's not trolling.

So why starting this thread? Because there is this sentence I hear and read a lot that always triggers me a bit. Right wing people mockingly saying that you have to be a complete retard to be a socialist and that the argument "it's not real communism" is stupid. This argument is just saying that USSR or whatever "communist" country failure isn't a proof of communism failure because... Well it wasn't real communism.

And this argument is... Perfectly valid though a bit short-sighted.

I dare anyone to give an example of a real communism state in our world, present or past. There are none.

There is this HUGE MISTAKE made by tons of people who believe that communism = no private property = everything belongs to the state. Which is a very brutal and stupid interpretation of communism manifest. Communism doesn't mean everything belongs to the state but everything is owned by the people. In particular for Marxists (which are the most common kind of communists) it's not that there should be no private property but that anything being used in the economy (the means of production) should belong to the workers using them. (Which means very VERY limited private property because depending on interpretation pretty much anything can be considered being part of the economy)

But let's simplify all this by saying that, in communism, the means of production are supposed to belong to the people.

The people.

Not the state, the people. That's where lies the "it's not real communism".

Because what are exactly countries like Venezuela or USSR or Cuba or North Korea? They're countries where state is all powerfull, meaning the leaders are all powerfull. What do you call such countries? Dictatorships. And it doesn't matter if the dictatorship calls itself communist or islamic or democratic or whatever. A dictatorship is just a dictatorship, a country where the people are oppressed by a very small group having the power. It's not communism at all! It's the opposite of communism.


So no it wasn't real communism. But why is it a short-sighted answer? Well because it seems that every time a country adopts communism it falls immediately into a dictatorship. So even if those countries aren't communist, if every country trying to adopt communism falls into dictatorship 2 days later... Well it means that even if there is a slight difference, communism leads to dictatorship.

And that's right. At least that WAS right. Communism means that the people own and control everything equally, but that wasn't possible, what was used was that people were represented by a government THEN this government controls everything (hence the dictatorship).

But maybe we have an alternative solution now. Maybe we can do things differently... What if we didn't use the government to control things? What if we did it ourselves directly? With our technologies we no longer have a use for representative politics. Direct democracy is completely possible.


So I can't say anything for sure of course, but it seems to me that we have new possibility. Applying the new technologies (including blockchains) to create a country where everything is directly controlled by the people, which would be real communism this time.

EDIT: Since TECSHARE and I have don't have the same definition of trolling I removed his posts from the thread but he ahd the good idea to post them on another one. You can find our arguments there https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/reee-its-not-real-communism-or-why-socialism-can-still-be-an-answer-5076948 if you're interested

Monarchy, democracy, tyranny, oligarchy, communism... Everything could work, depending the people involved on these systems. In the end the problem are the people and not the systems themselves... That is why there are always positive examples about everything involving nordic countries, but when you apply the nordic politics in third world countries there isn't any guarantee they will work too, because the people.

Why shouldn't there be a constitution? The constitution just must be writen by citizens as it has been done in Iceland.
And you talk about a big syndicate aiming at their own interests, but that would be only if you manage to find a large enough amount of people who share the same interests.
What you mean here is that majority would rull over minority right?

You're right. The constitution might guarantee certain rights and we can change the idea of majority by saying for example laws can pass only if 60% of the population agrees but eventually, you reach a point where you say "hey, 80% of us agree on this so let's do this". But I don't see any way to have a system where a group manages itself without deciding that majority rules minority. It's teh very base of group interactions. Unless you see something else possible?

Well that's understandable cause that would be some crazy changes. I don't see any mild solution but if you do feel free to tell 

I really think people would change their state of mind if they knew they had actual power. Today people don't give a shit because they know politicians are just lying and nothing can be done.
If you tell them "ok now you make the laws and the constitution, no more representants you're going to decide yourself" they will be scared of course, but also happy to have control over their own destiny. And I think they'll really get more and more involved in politics.

I meant financial instruments.  Invest 25K, and get $150/month in your sleep.

Maybe investing in order to increase production is not the right way to go?

Don't know in USA but in France most small peasants died because of the race towards innovation and productivity. Those who survived are the ones that kept their original ways of producing and are producing less but of higher quality with little investment.

They spend too much, they should save about 20-25K, invest it in dividend-paying instruments and generate $150+/month.

35 hour work weeks. There are people who work 60 hours a week in America, and have less leftover than these individuals (after all expenses are paid).

Not to mention; work can include stuff like pole fishing, it doesn't seem to bad to be honest.

https://www.eastwindblog.co/?p=1250

$150/month for slave work and dorm bunk bed, yeah, they live much better than people in North Korea.

What a waste of time.  Lost opportunities; these young people will regret their decision one day.

East Wind Community was (and is) an interesting experiment.

I wonder if that's classified as "communism".

Are you saying that in the capitalist system the capitalist class owns the underwear of workers?  Are you well? You should check it out, it might a tumor. LOL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaTO8_KNcuo

I am very familiar with what it means not to be able to own a private property.  It is a nightmare.  

I would not wish for my worse enemy to live under a socialist or a communist system.  

The right to own a private property is a basic human right, IMHO.

You need to distinguish the difference between private property and personal property.  

...
The socialist ideal is that everyone owns their personal property.  The capitalist ideal is that the capitalist class owns everything, including the personal property of the working class.  

All the capital in your country would flee abroad.  Your banks will be insolvent.

If you freeze the bank accounts while you implement your system, your country's currency will be worthless on the international markets.

Billionaires who would lose money because of your plan would short sell your currency, stocks to ZERO.  Most likely than not, the billionaires would make sure your country is invaded and you are executed like Muammar Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein.  These gentlemen only hinted that their actions would affect USD exchange rates, look what happened to them.

Your country would not be able to buy foreign goods or resources.  Your citizens will die of starvation. Some lucky ones will escape before you implement your plan.

It is not funny.  This is what happened (and is happening) to many countries where social or political environment inhibits foreign investment.

Just the fact you are asking this question tells me you did not take any undergrad economics courses.  This is economics 101.

No country is self-sufficient.  The international currency market is where the wars are won and lost.

You live in a carefully constructed bubble.

Yes please. Tell me what capital would flee and how?
That's the one red flag all the capitalists are always swinging like a Damocles sword and I find it very funny as it makes no sense whatsoever.

Let's say there isn't state, each person has the same rights, everyone is "equal" (I really don't believe in equality, as it smashes the individuality). Then I suppose there won't be any constitution, because who will rule the country are the citizens directly, right? What they want is the law.

So the majority starts going against others unfairly, creating a big syndicate that will rule (dictatorship) aiming their own interests. There won't be any laws to protect anyone, as what matters are the majority wishes. After this point, a civil war may happen.

This majority can also create big economical issues, as there is a chance they won't know what they will be doing.

Politicians should be more capable than the average Joe to get that position (probably the average Joe should be more capable to choose the right politician too). It's true in many countries it doesn't work well, here there was a preacher as Science and Technology minister. Nothing against preachers, but in this case the guy didn't know anything about science or technology... At least here now there is a promise it will change, I hope so.

I'm not a big fan of these studies, they are very convenient when they want. It may vary depending on how you interpret them. Maybe a law that benefits the wealthy people, benefits average people too. Especially taking in consideration investments wealthy people make on the countries, what is advantageous even for the miserable ones.

But if a representant isn't being coherent with his initial proposals, there are many others on the competition, waiting for a chance. With social medias the pression over them is much bigger nowadays.

That is true, that is how Democracy is fail, not a perfect system, but at least there are some guarantees that respect our individuality against a possible majority's abuse.

And even if it was the Communism you say, these people would continue apathetic towards the politics, with the difference it would be a hostile unstable system.

Yes, changes are needed, 5 years is too much to accept quietly, especially if the political said one thing during the campaign and did the opposite or nothing after elected. I just don't think changes should be so extreme...

Between the two options, none was good for them, however their candidates weren't enough to please the majority too, otherwise they would be on the final round of the elections... The stronger group wins, with or without majority. It's really hard to find a candidate who is able to get votes from most people of a country.

I think if a politician lies new polls should be summoned.

Yes, because the ones who just press the buttons on the election's day and doesn't care anymore. Some people don't even know the difference between a president and a mayor... Again, it's not a perfect system, changes are constantly needed, but always preserving the conquests we made so far.

Capital would flee.  Your currency would collapse.  An iPhone would cost as much as a doctor's annual salary in your system.

Any more questions?